IN THE HIGH mum ma' KARNATAK_-Air' ' ~--%: :-
cmcurr BENCH AT Dagnwau ,. ff "
DATED THIS THE 2513 DAY oisf 1m,31§frJA:g§9A,.'2o¥o9;-T ;
BEFGRE V V
THE Horrnw MR. Jusfizfs 4.3.
m.1«*._4_;_,
3.9.5. so.VV1_3o5_:g/2oo5L%%%
M.FANo.134s6i3§1'~
_B_.,E.T_V!.EmI V _ 4 V _
GOUSAKH§aN"S;'s:§§MO5?-€iI{HAN'-GOQLNDQSJ
AGE 23 YEARS; _Occ:;nRi'%;ER,AV I
R/O.GALIONI, 'HO:'2~£;YELLAPU R--,._ " _
RAvIvARP§:1'-3, 'DHARWA-D; ' " " APPELLANT
(83; Sri: If?.G.CHIi{§{e§N£..R.AGL¥Nfi.; ADV.)
sou' MfA~ig=.1~: GA.-i'¥GADfiAR BUKATE
'AGE; MAJQR GCCKPRUCK OWNER,
R,-€.O.388~, YESHWANTHGAR, SANGLI
s'i':"MA'HARAs*rRA.
r---~4
'4 H " 2: THE DMSIQNAL MANAGER
INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD
N"Z"$x-'a'R TATA PETROL PUMP SANGLI
RXEBY THE DMO NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD
% V' _ .09? TO Ki'I"FEL COLLEGE,
F 8 ROAD, DI-IARWAD, RESPONDENTS
{By Sri : B S KAMATE. ADV. FGR RE
Sri: RAVINKHRA R MANE, AEDV. FOR R2)
2
“‘r
THIS APPEAL IS FILED U/S 173(1) ore ma ACT A$A1’Ns%r..fim-E_”‘ _
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DA’I’ED:19/()8/2006 mS:€.§:I3jV’iNL’Mvc’T
NO.194/2004 on THE FILE 05* 1 AD:>L,,…1:31.. MACT, DHARWAD, PAmfLY ALLQw_:N:c;1f1fI~£::.{VV¢LA:M”~
PETITION FOR COMPENSATION 5&5 1SEEK1TNc;;* _ ;?t«13%’r–}gE11?i
ENHANCEMENT OF’ COMPENSATIQN:
M.F’.A K0. 13062106 . ”
BETWEEN V
sou MALAN GANGADHAR B’H.iJKA;FE ;g ” _
MAJOR R/O NO 386, YAsHAvAN’1’Hx»zA<:-.AR«
SANGLI,MAI~1ARASHT_RA ";-.; –APPELlAN'I'
(By spa: I-3 s KAMATE ,A:;Ai)3'-.)::'–A "
n–I i
GOUSAKHAMN S}'«O 'MODIP~IKHAN GOLANDAJ
MUSLIM NQW AGED130*Y'RS
R/VCrvHAOSAY;kLLAPUR,' RAVWARPETH
IJFIARWAD .
» ‘ *TH.€ _,:jiv:si{}N MANAGER
Vzs:E:£vV ‘£3915 ASSURANCE co LTD
._ N_EAT’TfixTA ‘PETROL PUMP SANGLI
‘OPP KiTI’$Lt:oLLEGE, P B Row
DHARWAD’ RESPONDENTS
” ” 5 E? «3..i:1~£xK1<ANARAGUND, ADV. FOR R 1}
"THIS APPEAL IS man U/S wsu) 012* MV ACT AGAINST THE
jj JEIGGMEN? AND AWARD EJATED:19/O8;'2006 PASSED IN MVC
V VNO.194/2004 ON THE} FILE OF I ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (SRDN) 3.-,
" "cam as Anm. MACT, DHARWAD, AWARSING COMPENSATION 02:'
RS.2,51,00C)/– WITH IN'I'EREST@ 9% RA.
1
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR HEARING Trizs §;§Ai,” 4
ceuwr DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
mmummi
The claimant is the appellant No.
owner of the vehicle is the
2. Heard the learned for ‘th¢: paifties and
perused the appeal _
3. said to have been suffered
by the clajméinfizm écgbidfiilt which occurred on 22.03.2903,
,t}1e wa$.’¥b’efr.>;é¢_’ the Additicmal Motor Accident Claims
.. (for short the ‘AMACT1 seeking
.. AMACT’ had framed five issues for its
Qonsi<iérafi@;i' the fast and third issues miate to the
u 3350 the negligence on the part of the parties
i31§o:1i.?'e& . On the said issue, the AMACT was 9f the View that
was Izcgligent in the instant case and despite such
3:CGIIC1l;lSiG.'{1, the AMACT has proceeded to awagnd. the
compensatkm. On this aspect of the matter, the AMACT
43%
noficing certain inconsistent statement said to have beexcgziiade
by the driver of the lony, was of the View that
Company is to be absolved of the liability .¢
should be borne by the owner of
finding rendered by the AMACT,_ iI1sc4ifa1:"'*as
owner is before this Couxt assajlijig 'en the
owner despite the vcmct; beigig xtzéitht the 2nd
respon.deI1t—Insurance before the
AMACT.
4. for the ciaimant while assa113′ ’11g
the finding negligence would contend that
,~ the \3§*as.’t1et__§’g«stified in coming to such conclusion
as’«.,the__ statement made by the ciaimant would
of the vehicie was negligent and has
eauseti iaeegiéent. It is further contended that the AMACT
K x ” regt jviisfifled in nefieing the nature of the statements as
‘teentradictory and thereafter coming to euch a
T ebfleiusion. The learned Counsel for the owner of the vehicle
V HW(}111d contend that the statements of the driver is consistent
L
F.
inasmuch as the drive}: who was examined as R.W§2″»ohas
spoken with regard to the manner in which the acc§fieo I’
occurred which would clearly indicate that _
occurred when the Romy had slowed; M<Aio§s*1::o_véLod-I
was a thiré. party being outside _the vehieie, the :c'o;:t11:rené;.aiiio1i
was liable to be reimbursed the V
However, with regard to tine. tiie.._acci§ie:1'£,"'ihe driver
has also stated about the '1:ie_g1v1' gent and as such
in any event, the.V1iz-fibflity beevizz fasteneci on the
OWI1€T.
57′ _vTho{i’gh_V’thoef.InAs:1i*ai;£uce Company has not questioned
‘ a3:1_y of. the considering the fact that at the first
has absolved the insurance Company of
the leanmd Counsei for the insurance Company is
_ ago heoxdéagl terms of Order 41 Rule 22 815 33 of ope so {hat a
decision could be made by this Court wfih regard to the
of compensation and also to provide an opportunity
. ‘ A “”towf§:but the contention of the owner to shift the liability. The
learrzed Counsel for the Insurance Company would contend
J2
that ihe AMACI’ was perfectly justified in its
as the negligence is concerned. It is further thatu
the claimant has stated that he was t:e:.e’;f;reaee”;:§,Asd
the lorry, it would indicate t}1a’;_h_e waé’-i;i”the prokxees zof
unautllozised passenger in a ‘velgdjeler ‘even the
process of getting in is evdpaiesenger in
the vehicle. As such kfiyf terms of the
policy, the insurance Sliable. Therefone,
irrespective of the driver, the claimant
himself nature of the accident
and in ‘Will have to consider the
contributoxyux :;edg11gei1ceA’~o:11*…’fl::e part of the elahnant himself
..~ Veyen 3’_i’h «ecsmpensafion is te be granted to the
contended that if the award is to be
the extent of 5094; of the liability alone the
ewner $5 éeixiele would become liable and not otherwise.
‘>6: In the light of the five} eentenfions, a perusal of the
jjfidginent passed by the AMACT would indicate that the aspect
felafing to the nature of the accident and the issue relating to
1:
‘1
:
the negligence has been consiéered while answering §ssnE:—-.»Nos.
1 to 3. It is noticed that the AMACT has
ciocuments, which were marked at Ex11s.P} to P3
c:omp}aint iodgeci and ease Spot Panehéhama. 13353?
said documents the AMACT has cotéaaze ta
regard to the accident
considering the aspect of» tteglige-11ce”,_”t_’tict, come to
the conclusion that the {iiiver regard to the
nature of the accidimt in which the
” has come to the
conc1usioii1.th.at he 3_:te*g1tgen*t.
V, ‘V In this: a perusal of the complaint which is
wouid indicate that the statement made by
that while he Wa$ Waiting on the road side for
V’ _a ve}iicle vfbi” onwatd journey he saw the iorzy in question
.4 H ” hat} “slowed clown and he aastzmed that it had siowed
_ e.(_1€:’f-;_v:’1- to permit him*get inta the vehicle and at this stage, the
had moved foxward without stopping and the same has
‘A * ‘tesuited in the accident. The driver who had examined himself
I
as RW2 bczfore the AMAC’? has stated that at tha
the accident occuxmd when he had reached ‘A ”
Work was gaing on and as such the,’ place was ‘d1is1:,V””‘*31_e
was unable to see the maé propmfly déiicfh poem. >
he did not know that the c2z'(V)’é’;,<:iaI&%g'V§;he f§It}ad and
as such the accident v":':.'1_f__1;¢v}'1*»e*..fo'r:*c: as-xs stated
that since the claimant had?' fafithout due care,
he himself is If these two
statements emerges is that the
when claimant. vehicle for his onward
journey ion}; had stopped for his
benefit. fact; is sthat there is no clear evidence to
.v.i:;dic.afx:-§:.fiv:ga_xt the had already stepped an to the: lorry
't:_)V geigt' –i1f;to..§11¢s: 'itaiaicle. If this aspect of the matter is zloticed
efiifiianca of the drivar who has skated that he
Vhad tbs vehicle since the surroundiag was dusty
Work anti them was peer visibility, it would
'}:;1&avé.i:< } ha assumecl that the claimant had not yet reached the
[. to _
.31:-:-'i1;£(:1c in a procressficiimfi the same and at that time when the
3 "fairy had siowed down he moved further and the accident had
L
pg
occuneé. In this respect, if the statement of the is
noficed apart from the fact that he has pleaded
the Criminal Court, when the driver himself K V'
the road was dusty and nothing we.ém{riSi'e1e;'4._tI1e
course for the driver is to bring the veb___ieieV_A.to c() :1;pIevte~
this aspect is noticed, when t11e V"x:¥.b1'ive1"" 'af has VV
gzmceeded to drive despite thgeé no visib iIity, the
negligence will have to be ::'th._'::'1«'1:":<v'3i_,*.'. fi1_¢ Ciriver of the
vehicle.
8. zThe:.vefVc>1″e:,V relating to negligence, I am
unable to ace£:deV’ to’ leaened Counsel for the insurance
” shouid be helel to have eontzibuted
‘i;1Letb’ee’ha;sep§9nin$’c£:he accident. Since I am of the View that
the a.ceide1:£t due to the negligence of the driver of the
_ irehicle lorry, the finding as Iendered by the AMACT on
I fl”Te:£ aspect is set aside. Further, since the claimant was a
_ eutside the vehicle, the Insurance Comgany is also
fieigi’ liable to reim3:mrse- the insured.
9. Having come to such conclusion, the _
relating to the quantum of compensation also to ” = 2
considered, more particularly, in Ftllie. hfalcét 4’t.’:’)f&1:’_
Insurance Company is now held’lia..ble. Ijholiie ;
also heard the lrsarncd Counsel tho Itxszilfatice ilflompany
who contends that the is In
this regard, the leaxncd out that the
AMACT has flGt3fO;é%}}ll*Cd the: inasmuch
as the under difihrent
heads fog’ flit” noticing the same in
different has led to the exorbitant
oompensafiozthéfizg In this mgaxfl, it is no doubt
” tme, followed the appropriate: procedure.
lhi-low:-fiv”::r,_ :%–1–«.sum of Rs.2,5},OO0/– is granted, the
have to be worked out in the conventional
manna; to iiofiée whether the same would be exorbitant and as
V’ tofwlr1é:*£;.’-fger the same calls for reduction.
ll 10. II: this regard, in respect of the zxatuze of mjuries
huslufibzté by the claimant, there cannot be any dispute
E
E1
inasmuch as the documents have been produced bef<jli.9ef.he
AMACT relating to the namre of injuries and
been examined as P.W.2. The disability .,
marked at E-x.P7 and the ciisabiiity
33°/o to the iower limb. No d0»1fl:}'£, lfiormal
the conventional method of reckdmfig 1/3" ' to the V
Whole body would have be folibiaéexie IV-iosyever,' the instant
case, it is noticed that has almost
prevented the V~.a.vs§ driver as he was
doing ea:§:i¢fJ'a:mi'e;;s disability to be reckoned
would be a:t'20%; xdisability is reckoned and the
daily wage is Lf¢s3*.::rg15c:'<-5; medical expenses, foe:-é, nouzishment and conveyance,
51' F?s.20,00(}/- would have to be awarcleé. Considexing
nature of injuries, the ciaimant would have taken six
months to recover and for the said period, a sum of
£
'5
I2
Rs.2i,600/- is awarded. If the said amounts are considexed,
the total compensation would Workout to Rs..'?.,49,840–j ffitiiee
there is not much difiemnoe between the '
awarded by the AMACT and the just». c_ompetiaa~:;ioh""that is_ 'A V'
payable, i see no reason to °thé=.aWa,'rdr
question relating to quantum of A
11. That being so, the 3’ud§m_e:;t_ and iaimodified
only to the extent of holdttig ‘€i_17iuV;?erAof the éehicle was
neg1igent’hia’Veauaiag’«the setting aside the finding
of the the negligence on the clann’ ant
and ft1xther,’d”‘t}1e’ 0}\?Vne1-jsof the vehicle and the insurance
_b¢r.:,re Ah”I;’&C’i’ are held joifitly amid severally liable
Since there is a va3;id insurance
poI§§cy9″as o’n.V'”ti;.e.5’dVate of the accident and since I have already
held that Vthehvlnsurance Company is liable to pay the amount,
ttieddveottixe amount as ordered by the AMACI’ shall be deposited
“insurance Company befoxe the AMACT. The amount in
” before this {lourt shall be refunded to the appeiiant in
MFA No.13(}62/2O06. })
mm
13
In terms of the above, the aPPca1§ Stand; Wifil K ” ,
no oréer as to costs. . _
Tudgg